truthseeker

B: For those of us who aren't members of that group, could you post the text? Thanks. TS

I know it hardly needs pointing out, but this was a post by Jonathan Rees or at his behest.. The whole sordid story is too long to go into, but he's notorious in the local blogosphere for using aliases and posting inaccurate and libelous (and completely undocumented) charges against Brooks and anyone who criticize him for doing so. Google "Jonathan Rees" "Dc Council" for links to this bizarre behavior. Try finding anything similar by Brooks or any other candidate. There aren't any such posts. Also, check out this site's Local politics board for two posts titles "Multiple Alias Disorder" which prove definitively that many of the posts on local boards all came from Rees himself. He'll allege that it's brooks, but can never back it up. You'll note that the post he references bears no resemblance to his characterization of it. The title of the post wasn't a "quote" as the author didn't interview Brooks for the piece. Typical. You'll note, too, that there's no substantiation given for the ridiculous story about John Capozzi (a name he got from Brooks' campaign contributors list, and a blog comments page....the "candidate always exacts revenge on anyone who dares criticize him using their own name.). Nor does he show any evidence of the charge that anyone accused him of murder. Not even a screenshot of the allegedly deleted post. Again, typical confabulation. The only way any of his posts ever get support is when a new alias, never a person known to exist, appears to allege that "they" also "heard" of the incident. It's pathetic. No, he is not a "decent man." And the people who attempt to counteract his vitriol and disinformation here are not Sam Brooks, or his supporters or any kind of political operative at all. At least I'm not and I'm reasonably sure the others aren't either.

I know it hardly needs pointing out, but this was a post by Jonathan Rees or at his behest.. The whole sordid story is too long to go into, but he's notorious in the local blogosphere for using aliases and posting inaccurate and libelous (and completely undocumented) charges against Brooks and anyone who criticize him for doing so. Google "Jonathan Rees" "Dc Council" for links to this bizarre behavior. Try finding anything similar by Brooks or any other candidate. There aren't any such posts. Also, check out this site's Local politics board for two posts titles "Multiple Alias Disorder" which prove definitively that many of the posts on local boards all came from Rees himself. He'll allege that it's brooks, but can never back it up. You'll note that the post he references bears no resemblance to his characterization of it. The title of the post wasn't a "quote" as the author didn't interview Brooks for the piece. Typical. You'll note, too, that there's no substantiation given for the ridiculous story about John Capozzi. Again, typical. The only way any of his posts ever get support is when a new alias, never a person known to exist, appears to allege that "they" also "heard" of the incident. It's pathetic. No, he is not a "decent man." And the people who attempt to counteract his vitriol and disinformation here are not Sam Brooks, or his supporters or any kind of political operative at all. At least I'm not and I'm reasonably sure the others aren't either.

I know it hardly needs pointing out, but this was a post by Jonathan Rees or at his behest.. The whole sordid story is too long to go into, but he's notorious in the local blogosphere for using aliases and posting inaccurate and libelous (and completely undocumented) charges against Brooks and anyone who criticize him for doing so. Google "Jonathan Rees" "Dc Council" for links to this bizarre behavior. Try finding anything similar by Brooks or any other candidate. There aren't any such posts. Also, check out this site's Local politics board for two posts titles "Multiple Alias Disorder" which prove definitively that many of the posts on local boards all came from Rees himself. He'll allege that it's brooks, but can never back it up. You'll note that the post he references bears no resemblance to his characterization of it. The title of the post wasn't a "quote" as the author didn't interview Brooks for the piece. Typical. You'll note, too, that there's no substantiation given for the ridiculous story about John Capozzi. Again, typical. The only way any of his posts ever get support is when a new alias, never a person known to exist, appears to allege that "they" also "heard" of the incident. It's pathetic. No, he is not a "decent man." And the people who attempt to counteract his vitriol and disinformation here are not Sam Brooks, or his supporters or any kind of political operative at all. At least I'm not and I'm reasonably sure the others aren't either.

No, you're wrong. He never interviewed Brooks. Nice anti-gay remark there, Rees. I'll remember this next time you pretend to be the Champion Of the LBGT Community.

Pretty language there. But anyway.... You've been caught, definitively, using aliases to post horrible things about Brooks (and others) repeatedly. (See "Multiple Alias Postings" IP address concordance, which no amount of spin can change.) But you have yet to show a single post that accuses you of anything other than lying and slandering or being unstable. All anyone ever does is respond to your outrageous malice, illogic, deflection and distortion with fact, questions or criticism. And, sure, some snarky insults. More importantly, you certainly haven't shown any link to Brooks or Bill Adler or Luke Wilbur or Martin Austermeuhle or Fred Vinson or John Capozzi or Nelson Jacobson or Melvin Blecher or any of the other people you've accused of orchestrating some mythical campaign against you. Hard to believe, but the folks who post responses to you here and on other boards are just trying to counter your own irresponsible and thoughtless posts with a measure of reality. Some of us, in other words, still believe in holding candidates to some basic ethical standard.

1. That was a blog posting, not an article. Big difference. 2. It's not a quote, it's a post title. 3. Duh.

HA HA HAHAHAHA. The link you posted in no way demonstrates that Brooks "Admitted to the Washington Post" that he'd engaged in mudslinging. (That's you, remember? He's the guy who -hasn't- and has agreed to continue to behave in a professional manner. YOU'RE the guy who won't agree to even that.) Anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension level can see that...I'm surprised you provided that link, which is far more damaging to you, Mr. Alias. And go ahead, provide a link that shows he accused you of killing your wife. You can't, because that never happened. Though I'm sure you'll cook up some torturous and implausible backpedalling explanation. Also: No one is buying your "I heard that" stories anymore. Especially since you've invoked the name of someone who questioned you on another board not long ago. And we've seen, too many times, how you like to lash back at people who use their given names to critique you. (Which is why so many people won't.) The story you've told about Mr. Capozzi never happened either. Whatever dude. You were busted a long time ago (See "Multiple Alias Disorder" posts on this board.) No one believes anything you say anymore. You are not "a decent man."

(Oh dear...now you've done it...you can almost HEAR him registering a new alias as we speak.) Update: And I think we have a winner, in the person of the newest poster listed on the message board main page. So typical

He DOES seem to have a problem with judges, doesn't he? http://dcwatch.com/election2006/rees02.htm I suppose he'll say that DCWatch faked that one, too. Screenshot in hand, so don't bother deleting it.

Fortunately, someone got a screenshot of it before YOU took it down.

"LINKLESS"?!!! It's RIGHT THERE!!! see? WITHIN THE POST ITSELF?!!! oh, god this is too funny!! hee hee.

I hope that everyone reading this will recall that only moments ago, the poster was potraying himself as a friend to gay people. You disgust me. I need to go wash your filth off of me. How you manage to live with yourself is beyond me.

wrong again, rees. I've never contributed to a candidate in my life. See previous comment about sucking at bluffing.

I don't know....are those the names of two more children that you'd forgotten to mention?

A. Your account does not permit IP addresses to be viewed. B. Laughably wrong on the street address, dude. You suck at bluffing.

No, as a matter of fact. Sod off, you creep.

A person with a chemical imbalance, an obsessive tendency to confabulation, poor critical thinking and language skills and a complete lack of ethics? The question is rhetorical of course.

You unconscionable hypocrite. You come on this board and post "When are you fags going to get a life," falsely accuse people of being gay lovers (as if there were something wrong with that), claim that posters here are using "gay imagery" and employ other gay-baiting tactis. And then you have the nerve to post this? Just when I think you can't sink any lower....

No, I will not "do my own research". YOU'RE the person who made the allegation. YOU'RE the candidate. YOU post something substantive. It's NOT the job of the voting public to repudiate, it's your job to substantiate. When you're not too busy posting spam on Craigslist, of course. Speaking of which, do the people at WCDA-AM Christian Radio know that you're using their website to post campaign materials? Don't bother removing the page...I already have a screenshot. And it clearly says that Jonathan R. Rees authored the page. For someone who claims on his resume to posess advanced computer skills, I'm a bit surprised at your unfamiliarity with the most basic computer concepts. And, speaking of which, the IP address concordance definitely proved that you are Rees. You can deny it forever, but that doesn't change it. Prattle on, Alias Man.

Well, he's still doing it over on DC Politics, Luke. Check out his latest work. Please resume moderating that board. It's an absolute scandal that he's allowed to post this stuff . And no, I'm not a supporter or operative of any of his opponents.

As usual, either post a link or screenshot that proves that his contributors support DOMA, or clam up. See, THIS is why the clean campaign pledge is necessary. Because one of the candidate's in the ward 3 race continues to use a cloak of what he still believes to be anonymity to post crap like this on an unmoderated board (the only one that will still allow him.) Go away Rees.

WoW! The entire DC Swingers Yahoo Group has been taken down as of this afternoon! Doesn't matter, though, because the posts in question have been screen-shot.

Anticipating that the poster would eventually try to make the Swingers posts vanish into thin air, I did actually get screen shots. I'm debating whether to post them here, as they're revolting, but let's just say that they feature the poster bragging at length about his supposed prowess in the area of adult activity. I wish there was some sort of bleach to remove this hideous visual from my mental image bank. Another reason I haven't posted it -- I don't want to subject readers to this same affliction. I'd like to second what BFrank said above. It's not that I care what people do (or say they do) sexually. It's not anyone's place to judge, and in any case I'm all for people enjoying themselves consensuallyand safely. Perhaps he has a poly relationship of some kind. Whatever. No, the point is that the "marital status" information in the posts contradict what's been posted elsewhere. Even assuming a poly relationship, either THOSE posts contain a lie (to potential partners) or all the other biographical posts contain a lie (to the voting public.)

You might also find the following website interesting: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wash_DC_Swingers/messages In the message search box enter the profile name from the above screenshot, only drop the "1955". Warning: some of the postings are supremely icky. Since several of the posts were linked to the screenname italianguy1955, search that too. Equally icky. "For the record," I'm not saying this was posted by anyone in particular. Though I find it QUITE the coincidence that one of the posts linked to one of those email addresses is in the name "Giovanni Luchesse."